Serious superficial incisional surgical site infections (SSISSIs) are a critical subset of SSIs that require surgical intervention or lead to hospital readmission. Analyzing 11,617 SSIs from 47 community hospitals, the inclusion of SSISSIs changed 30/47 hospital rankings (p = 0.02), highlighting the need for inclusion in standardized infection surveillance models.

Although the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) recommends the reporting of superficial incisional SSIs, the standardized infection ratio (SIR) models used by the NSHN exclude superficial incisional SSIs cases. Yet, some superficial incisional SSIs may lead to serious adverse patient outcomes. We previously proposed a new category of such infections: serious superficial incisional surgical site infections (SSISSIs), defined as a superficial incisional SSI that (1) required debridement in an operating room and/or (2) led to a hospital readmission within 30 days of surgery. The objective of our study was to determine the prevalence of SSISSIs in a large network of community hospitals and compare hospital rankings of SSI rates of organ/space and deep SSIs (complex SSIs) with and without SSISSIs. We performed a retrospective descriptive analysis of prospectively collected data on 35 NHSN surgical categories in 47 community hospitals within the Duke Infection Control Outreach Network (DICON) from 1/1/2013-12/31/2022. All hospitals used standardized surveillance and data collection strategies throughout the study period. The Wilcoxon rank-sum was used to test for differences in performance rankings of hospitals sorted by rates of complex SSIs alone compared to complex and SSISSI rates. A two-tailed P value of .05 or less was considered significant. Overall, 11,617 SSIs occurred after 1,272,257 surgeries (0.91 SSIs/100 procedures). Out of 3,996 superficial SSIs, 2,038 (17.5% overall, 51.0% of superficial incisional) met criteria for SSISSI. 112 (5.5%) were diagnosed during the current admission and required takeback to the OR for infection; 1,926 (94.5%) were diagnosed during a readmission; and 3841 (33.1%) were diagnosed during readmission and returned to the OR. (Table1) The highest proportion of SSISSIs was diagnosed in patients who underwent gastrointestinal surgery (32.0%) or orthopedic surgery (24.0%). (Table2) Performance ranking of individual hospitals based on rates of complex SSIs, differed significantly when including SSISSIs (p= 0.02). (Table3) Discussion Our findings suggest that SSISSIs make up a moderate but important proportion of SSIs in community hospitals. SSISSIs can be identified through established database surveillance looking at objective measures of returning to the OR for debridement and/or readmission within 30 days. Hospital rankings differed significantly when SSISSIs were added to complex SSIs to calculate SSI rates. As such, including SSISSIs likely provides a more accurate depiction of SSIs with important outcomes and is not as subjective to surveillance bias. Next steps would be specifically to look at outcomes data for complex SSIs compared to SSISSIs to fully evaluate the

Background: Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) are an urgent threat to healthcare, but the epidemiology of these antimicrobial-resistant organisms may be evolving in some settings since the COVID-19 pandemic. An updated analysis of hospital-acquired CRE (HA-CRE) incidence in community hospitals is needed. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data on HA-CRE cases and antimicrobial utilization (AU) from two community hospital networks, the Duke Infection Control Outreach Network (DICON) and the Duke Antimicrobial Stewardship Outreach Network (DASON) from January 2013 to June 2023. The zero-inflated negative binomial regression model was used owing to excess zeros. Results: 126 HA-CRE cases from 36 hospitals were included in the longitudinal analysis. The pooled incidence of HA CRE was 0.69 per 100,000 patient days (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.57-0.82 HA-CRE rate significantly decreased over time before COVID-19 (rate ratio [RR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.89-0.99]; p = 0.02), but there was a significant slope change indicating a trend increase in HA-CRE after COVID-19 (RR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.06-1.66]; p = 0.01). In 21 hospitals participating in both DICON and DASON from January 2018 to June 2023, there was a correlation between HA-CRE rates and AU for CRE treatment (Spearman's coefficient = 0.176; p < 0.01). Anti-CRE AU did not change over time, and there was no level or slope change after COVID. Conclusions: The incidence of HA-CRE decreased before COVID-19 in a network of community hospitals in the southeastern United States, but this trend was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We calculated the attributable cost of several healthcare-associated infections in a community hospital network: central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs), hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI-HOs) (43 hospitals); surgical site infections (SSIs) (40 hospitals). From 2016 to 2022, the total cost of CLABSIs, CAUTIs, CDI-HOs, and SSIs was $420,012,025.

Initial assessments of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) preparedness revealed resource shortages and variations in infection prevention policies across US hospitals. Our follow-up survey revealed improvement in resource availability, increase in testing capacity, and uniformity in infection prevention policies. Most importantly, the survey highlighted an increase in staffing shortages and use of travel nursing.

Abstract Background Early assessments of COVID19 preparedness reported resource shortages, use of crisis capacity strategies, variations in testing, personal protective equipment (PPE), and policies in US hospitals. One year later, we performed a follow-up survey to assess changes in infection prevention practice and policies in our diverse network of community and academic hospitals. Methods This was a cross-sectional electronic survey of infection preventionists in 58 hospitals within the Duke Infection Control Outreach Network (community) and Duke/UNC Health systems (academic) in April-May 2021 to follow-up our initial survey from April 2020. The follow-up survey included 26 questions related to resource availability, crisis capacity strategies, procedures, changes to PPE and testing, and staffing challenges. Results We received 54 responses (response rate, 93%). Facilities reported significantly fewer PPE and resource shortages in the follow-up survey compared to our initial survey (Figure 1, P< 0.05). Only 32% of respondents were still reprocessing N95 respirators (compared to 73% in initial survey, P< 0.05). All hospitals performed universal masking, universal symptom screening on entry, and 30% required eye protection. In 2020, most hospitals suspended elective surgical procedures in March-April, and restarted in May-June. Approximately 92% reported in-house testing for SARS-COV-2 by April 2020, at least a third of which had a weekly capacity of >100 tests. Almost 80% performed universal pre-operative testing, while 61% performed universal preadmission testing for SARS-COV-2. Almost all hospitals switched from test-based to time-based strategy for discontinuing isolation precautions, majority in August-September 2020. Twenty-five percent hospitals reported infection prevention furloughs, staffing cuts, and or reassignments, while 81% reported increased use of agency nursing during the pandemic. Conclusion Our follow-up survey reveals improvement in resource availability, evolution of PPE guidance, increase in testing capacity, and burdensome staffing changes. Our serial surveys suggest increasing uniformity in infection prevention policies, but also highlight the increase in staff turnover and infection prevention staffing shortages. Disclosures Sonali D. Advani, MBBS, MPH, Nothing to disclose David J. Weber, MD, MPH, PDI (Consultant)

We performed a cross-sectional survey of infection preventionists in 60 US community hospitals between April 22 and May 8, 2020. Several differences in hospital preparedness for SARS-CoV-2 emerged with respect to personal protective equipment conservation strategies, protocols related to testing, universal masking, and restarting elective procedures.

Abstract Background Traditional approaches for SSI surveillance have deficiencies that can delay detection of SSI outbreaks and other clinically important increases in SSI rates. Optimized SPC methods for SSI surveillance have not been prospectively evaluated. Methods We conducted a prospective multicenter stepped wedge cluster RCT to evaluate the performance of SSI surveillance and feedback performed with optimized SPC plus traditional surveillance methods compared to traditional surveillance alone. We divided 13 common surgical procedures into 6 clusters (Table 1). A cluster of procedures at a single hospital was the unit of randomization and analysis, and 105 total clusters across 29 community hospitals were randomized to 12 groups of 8-10 clusters (Figure 1). After a 12-month baseline observation period (3/2016-2/2017), the SPC surveillance intervention was serially implemented according to stepped wedge assignment over a 36-month intervention period (3/2017-2/2020) until all 12 groups of clusters had received the intervention. The primary outcome was the overall SSI prevalence rate (PR=SSIs/100 procedures), evaluated with a GEE model with Poisson distribution. Table 1 Figure 1 Schematic for stepped wedge design. The 12-month baseline observation period was followed by the 36-month intervention period, comprised of 12 3-month steps. Results Our trial involved prospective surveillance of 237,704 procedures that resulted in 1,952 SSIs (PR=0.82). The overall SSI PR did not differ significantly between clusters of procedures assigned to SPC surveillance (781 SSIs/89,339 procedures; PR=0.87) and those assigned to traditional surveillance (1,171 SSIs/148,365 procedures; PR=0.79; PR ratio=1.10 [95% CI, 0.94–1.30]; P=.25) (Table 2). SPC surveillance identified 104 SSI rate increases that required formal investigations, compared to only 25 investigations generated by traditional surveillance. Among 10 best practices for SSI prevention, 453 of 502 (90%) SSIs analyzed due to SPC detection of SSI rate increases had at least 2 deficiencies (Table 3). Table 2 Poisson regression models comparing surgical site infection (SSI) prevalence rates for procedure clusters receiving statistical process control surveillance to SSI rates for clusters receiving traditional control surveillance. Table 3 Compliance with 10 best practices for surgical site infection (SSI) prevention among 502 SSIs analyzed during SSI investigations generated by statistical process control surveillance. Conclusion SPC methods more frequently detected important SSI rate increases associated with deficiencies in SSI prevention best practices than traditional surveillance; however, feedback of this information did not lead to SSI rate reductions. Further study is indicated to determine the best application of SPC methods to improve adherence to SSI quality measures and prevent SSIs. Disclosures Arthur W. Baker, MD, MPH, Medincell (Advisor or Review Panel member) Susan S. Huang, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)

Abstract Background The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has placed a tremendous strain on the U.S. healthcare system leading to personal protective equipment (PPE) and resource shortages. Hospitals have developed contingency and crisis capacity strategies to optimize the use of resources, but, to date, community hospital preparedness has not been described. Methods We performed a cross-sectional survey of infection preventionists in 60 community hospitals within the Duke Infection Control Outreach Network between April 22 and May 7, 2020 using Qualtrics. The survey included 13 questions related to resource availability, crisis capacity strategies and approaches to testing. Results We received 50 responses during the study period with a response rate of 83%. Community hospitals reported varying degrees of PPE shortages (Table 1); 80% of community hospitals were implementing strategies to extend and reuse N95 respirators, Powered Air-Purifying Respirators, face shields and face masks. Over 70% of facilities reported reprocessing N95 respirators (Figure 1). Almost all facilities reported universal masking at time of this survey with 90% performing daily employee screening at point of entry. Additionally, 8% of facilities restarted elective procedures at the time of this survey, but only 54% of facilities reported that they were performing preoperative testing for SARS-CoV-2. Thirty-seven percent of facilities performed one SARS-CoV-2 test before discharging an asymptomatic patient to skilled nursing facility, while 43% of facilities performed 2 tests. Table 1- Supply of Personal Protective Equipment and other resources in 50 community hospitals in southeastern United States Figure 1: Different methods of reprocessing N95 respirators by 50 community hospitals in southeastern United States Conclusion Our findings reveal differences in resource availability, crisis capacity strategies and testing approaches used by community hospitals in preparation for the SARS-COV-2 pandemic. Lack of harmonization in approaches may be in part due to differences in state guidelines and decentralized federal approach to SARS-CoV-2 preparedness. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Antimicrobial surfaces have become a promising technology of integrating additional safeguards into hospitals’ fight against Healthcare Associated Infections (HAIs). This study assesses the potential benefits of copper-infused countertops compared with standard, laminated surfaces. The efficacy of a novel surface material in reducing the bacterial load was tested in a Neuro ICU (copper surface, intervention) and a Surgical ICU (laminated surface, control) during routine care (field test). Surfaces were cleaned following standard hospital protocol. After bleach cleaning of 5 high touch areas, pre-moistened swab samples were taken immediately, at 2 hours, and at 4 hours, for a total of 680 surface samples in 46 patient rooms. After incubation on blood agar plates, colony forming units (CFU) were documented. In a separate laboratory test, copper and laminated surfaces were inoculated with S. Aureus and the bacterial load was measured as described. Pre-treatment of the copper counter top followed manufacturer recommendation (light buffing with 365 grit sandpaper every 24 hours) or hospital-approved disinfection policy. Count numbers at the different time points for the surfaces were analyzed. In the field test, no statistically significant differences in bacterial surface burden were noted between the intervention and control unit at the three time points (RR = 1.6 (0.5–5.0); P = 0.4210). In the lab test, significant reductions in CFU across all surfaces were observed after 2 hours (>50%; P < 0.05). Light buffing led to the highest reduction in CFU (>99%; P < 0.05). After 4 hours the laminated surface showed further significant reduction (>93%;P < 0.05). However, CFU on the copper surface treated with standard disinfectant did not change (P < 0.05). The copper surface significantly reduces the bacterial burden if reactivated by light buffing with sandpaper in a lab test. Not following manufacturer recommendation will lead to similar (field) or even higher bacterial burden (lab) compared with standard laminated surfaces. Before implementation, considerations should be given to the increased workload due to daily surface reactivation, the potential of fine particle exposure, and the higher product costs. All authors: No reported disclosures.